Email this article to a friend

Assuming that rationality prevails and that Bolton and co. can be contained, the U.S. will continue with the successful program of crushing Iran’s economy and punishing its population.

The threat of a U.S. attack on Iran is all too real. Led by John Bolton, the Trump administration is spinning tales of Iranian misdeeds. It is easy to concoct pretexts for aggression. History provides many examples.

The assault against Iran is one element of the international program of flaunting overwhelming U.S. power to put an end to “successful defiance” of the master of the globe: the primary reason for the U.S. torture of Cuba for 60 years.

The reasoning would easily be understood by any Mafia Don. Successful defiance can inspire others to pursue the same course. The “virus” can “spread contagion,” as Kissinger put it when laboring to overthrow Salvador Allende in Chile. The need to destroy such viruses and inoculate victims against contagion—commonly by imposing harsh dictatorships—is a leading principle of world affairs.

Iran has been guilty of the crime of successful defiance since the 1979 uprising that deposed the tyrant the U.S. had installed in the 1953 coup that, with help from the British, destroyed the parliamentary system and restored ­obedience. The achievement was welcomed by liberal opinion. As the New York Times explained in 1954, thanks to the subsequent agreement between Iran and foreign oil companies, “Underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism.” The article goes on to state, “It is perhaps too much to hope that Iran’s experience will prevent the rise of Mossadeghs in other countries, but that experience may at least strengthen the hands of more reasonable and more far-seeing leaders.”

Little has changed since. To take another more recent example, Hugo Chávez changed from tolerated bad boy to dangerous criminal when he encouraged OPEC to raise oil prices for the benefit of the global south, the wrong people. Soon after, his government was overthrown by a military coup, welcomed by the leading voice of liberal journalism. The Times editors exulted that “Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator,” the “ruinous demagogue” Hugo Chávez, “after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona”—who quickly dissolved the National Assembly, suspended the constitution and disbanded the Supreme Court, but, unfortunately, was overthrown within days by a popular uprising, compelling Washington to resort to other means to kill the virus.

The quest for dominance

Once Iranian “successful defiance” was terminated, and the “clear-eyed” Shah was safely installed in power, Iran became a pillar of U.S. control of the Middle East, along with Saudi Arabia and post-1967 Israel, which was closely allied with the Shah’s Iran, though not formally. Israel also had shared interests with Saudi Arabia, a relationship now becoming more overt as the Trump administration oversees an alliance of reactionary Middle East states as a base for U.S. power in the region.

Control of the strategically significant Middle East, with its huge and easily accessible oil reserves, has been a centerpiece of policy since the U.S. gained the position of global hegemon after World War II. The reasons are not obscure. The State Department recognized that Saudi Arabia is “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in world history.” Eisenhower described it as the most “strategically important part of the world.” That control of Middle East oil yields “substantial control of the world” and “critical leverage” over industrial rivals has been understood by influential statesmen from Roosevelt adviser A. A. Berle to Zbigniew Brzezinski.

These principles hold quite independently of U.S. access to the region’s resources, which, in fact, has not been of primary concern. Through much of this period the U.S. was a major producer of fossil fuels, as it is again today. But the principles remain the same, and are reinforced by other factors, among them the insatiable demand of the oil dictatorships for military equipment and the Saudi agreement to support the dollar as global currency, affording the U.S. major advantages.

Middle East correspondent Tom Stevenson does not exaggerate when he writes that, “The U.S.’s inherited mastery of the Gulf has given it a degree of leverage over both rivals and allies probably unparalleled in the history of empire… It is difficult to overstate the role of the Gulf in the way the world is currently run.”

It is, then, understandable why successful defiance in the region cannot be tolerated.

After the overthrow of its Iranian client, the U.S. turned to direct support for Saddam’s invasion of Iran, tacitly condoning his use of chemical weapons and finally intervening directly by protecting Iraqi shipping in the Gulf from Iranian interdiction to ensure Iran’s submission. The extent of Reagan’s commitment to his friend Saddam was illustrated graphically when Iraqi missiles struck the USS Stark, killing 37 crew, eliciting a tap on the wrist in response. Only Israel has been able to get away with something like that (USS Liberty, 1967).

When the war ended, under President George H.W. Bush, the Pentagon and Department of Energy invited Iraqi engineers to the U.S. for advanced training in weapons production, an existential threat to Iran. Since then, harsh sanctions and cyber attacks—an act of aggression according to Pentagon doctrine—have been employed to punish the miscreants.

Threat to the world order

U.S. political leaders across the spectrum warn that all options are open in assaulting Iran – “containing it,” in ­prevailing Newspeak. It is irrelevant that “the threat or use of force” is explicitly banned in the UN Charter, the foundation of modern international law.

Iran is regularly depicted as the greatest threat to world peace—in the U.S., that is. Global opinion differs, regarding the U.S. as the greatest threat to world peace, but the American population is protected from this unwelcome news by the Free Press.

That Iran’s government is a threat to its own population is not in doubt, nor is the fact that like everyone else, Iran seeks to expand its influence. The issue, rather, is Iran’s alleged threat to world order generally.

What then is that threat? A sensible answer has been provided by U.S. intelligence, which advised Congress in 2010 (nothing has materially changed since) that Iranian military doctrine is strictly “defensive … designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities,” and that “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.” (U.S. intelligence agencies acknowledged in 2007 and 2012 that Iran doesn’t currently have a nuclear weapons program.) For those who wish to rampage freely in the region, a deterrent is an intolerable threat—even worse than “successful defiance.”

There would of course be ways to end the alleged threat of Iranian nuclear weapons. One start was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the joint agreement on nuclear weapons, endorsed by the Security Council and abrogated by the Trump administration, in full awareness that Iran has lived up to its commitments.

Hawks claim that the agreement did not go far enough, but there are simple ways to go beyond. The most obvious is to move towards a nuclear-weapons-free zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East, as strongly advocated by the Arab states, by Iran and by G-77 (the former non-aligned countries), with general support elsewhere. There is a key obstacle. The proposal is regularly vetoed by the U.S. at the NPT review conferences, mostly recently by Obama in 2015. The reason, as everyone knows, is that the plan would require the U.S. to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons and even to authorize inspections. Again, intolerable.

It should not be forgotten that the U.S. (along with Britain) has a unique responsibility to establish a Middle East NWFZ. When attempting to provide some legal cover for the invasion of Iraq, the two aggressors claimed that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons in violation of Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991, after the Gulf war, which obligated Saddam to end such programs (as in fact he did). Little attention is paid to Article 14, calling for “steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction.”

It is also worth noting that when Iran was ruled by the Shah, there was little concern about Iranian intentions to develop nuclear weapons. These were clearly stated by the Shah, who informed foreign journalists that Iran would develop nuclear weapons “without a doubt and sooner than one would think.” The father of Iran’s nuclear energy program and former head of Atomic Energy Organization of Iran was confident that the leadership’s plan “was to build a nuclear bomb.” The CIA reported that it had “no doubt” Iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries did (as Israel of course has).

This was during the period when Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and other high officials were pressuring U.S. universities (my own, MIT, included) to facilitate Iran’s nuclear programs. Asked later why he supported such programs under the Shah but since strenuously opposes them, Kissinger responded honestly that Iran was an ally then. Simple enough.

The neoliberal formula

Assuming that rationality prevails and that Bolton and co. can be contained, the U.S. will continue with the successful program of crushing Iran’s economy and punishing its population. Europe is too intimidated to respond, and others lack the power to stand up to the Master. The same policies are being pursued in Venezuela, and have been employed against Cuba for many years, ever since the Kennedy administration recognized that its campaign to impose “the terrors of the earth” on Cuba (in the words of historian Arthur Schlesinger) brought the world close to destruction during the missile crisis.

It is a mistake to seek some grand geopolitical thinking behind Trump’s performances. These are readily explained as the actions of a narcissistic megalomaniac whose doctrine is to maintain personal power, and who has the political savvy to satisfy his constituencies, primarily corporate power and private wealth but also the voting base. The latter is kept in line by gifts to the religious right, dramatic pronouncements about protection of Americans from hordes of rapists and murderers and other demons, and the pretense to be standing up for the working stiff whom the administration’s actual policies are in fact shafting at every turn.

So far, it is working well. The neoliberal formula is flourishing: spectacular profits for the primary constituency along with general stagnation and precarity for the majority, ameliorated slightly by the continuing slow recovery from the Great Recession of 2008. In brief, Trump is doing just fine. He is helped by the obsession of the Democrats with Russiagate and their downplaying of his major crimes, the most important, by far, the policy of leading the race to environmental catastrophe. Another Trump term might—literally—be a death knell for organized human life.

A new poll shows that Trump’s job approval among likely voters has passed 50%, higher than Obama’s at this stage of his presidency. A smart policy for Trump would be to continue to shake his fist at the world, charging that weak-kneed liberals like “Sleepy Joe” and “crazy Bernie” would submit to the terrible enemies who are being subdued by the street tough with the MAGA hat. The stance is assisted by the liberal media, which reflexively echo the charges that the “rogue state” of Iran has to become a “normal state” like the U.S. (Pompeo’s mantra), even while warning timidly that war might not be the best way to achieve that goal.

There are of course other paths that can be pursued. And, crucially, there can be no delay in mounting powerful opposition to the threat of yet another crime of aggression, with its likely catastrophic outcomes.

Help In These Times Continue Publishing

Progressive journalism is needed now more than ever, and In These Times needs you.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the author of dozens of books on U.S. foreign policy. His most recent book is Who Rules the World? from Metropolitan Books.

yeah your comment just proves to me you are indeed just another angry dumb white kid who thinks his opinions matter there slick.

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-06-26 22:08:02

Well here I am again. Yeah, I read the article, and even better, the ex wife got her PhD from MIT in the early 90s, and guess whose lectures I got to hear first hand? Most were his theories of linguistics, but that's not what we're talking here.Chomsky makes up excuses for Communist atrocities. He distorts history to support his claims, and he has even been accused of being a holocaust denier, as well as espousing antisemitic rhetoric.He has obfuscated historical events to support his leftist ideology. Have YOU read anything by his critics.

Sorry, but your god has feet of clay.

Posted by Ron Malpeli on 2019-06-22 18:21:15

Chomsky is pro the people of the United States, although he is against the establishment that claims to represent the people when they are actually mostly about keeping their economic power. Polls show that most people would use light-rail if it was available, most are against the huge military spending and foreign interference, most are against lobbying, etc...

Posted by Alexis Rodriguez on 2019-06-22 18:00:54

ugh RACIST DIP@#$% ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-06-22 16:48:50

Compared to overthrowing the entire Iranian government, when it was democratid. That is what the US did. Apples and oranges.

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-06-22 16:47:35

Sigh......white people<_<

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-06-21 21:41:48

'What has Iran actually done to the USA?'

There was that small thing regarding taking over our embassy and holding our diplomats hostage for 444 days in 1979-80.

Posted by landshark123 on 2019-06-21 21:30:00

blah blah blah your response is as absurd as your original premise. you are a tool.

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-06-19 20:25:12

Being partial native doesn't make you one. Much like you don't need to be black to be an uncle tom. As can be seen with you.

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-06-17 01:25:12

Ahhh the racist nonsense shows up, and you just demonstrated your true colors with your truly absurd response. I am more Native American than white, and Chomsky might have the same color skin as Trump, but therein lies the fallacy of your garbage argument : they have nothing in common. So lumping all white people together in one group is just as bad morally as lumping all black people into the same group. I am embarrassed for you.

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-06-16 12:32:31

White boy you just don't get it do ya? Me and other ethnic people of color are sick and tired of the whitesplaining types like Chumpsky who love to speak on our behalf simply because they happen to be leftwing or because their fellow whites treated them like shit in the past so they think they are like us. We don't need no pasty faced gringos speaking on our behalf. We never asked for it and we never will. What part of this do you not get?

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-06-08 13:04:15

The first book I ever read of his was "Understanding Power" and it was a synthesis of old interviews where many topics, from foreign to domestic policy, were all brought up and after I followed up on his comments and footnotes, I realized right away that something was terribly wrong ; that the history Americans have been spoon-fed had nothing to do with the actual reality. After that, I read a bunch more from Chomsky. I do not agree with all of his conclusions, but no intellectual in the USA has done more than him to try and focus the attention on real agendas versus the propaganda-driven agendas, which is a an exhaustive undertaking. I am glad you also saw the larger picture.

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-06-07 18:30:43

Why don't you respond to any one of my myriad of points directly above your "witty" comeback if you are interested in the "truth". So that will require you to actually read something substantive. And since you are "sick of" people like Chomsky, why don't you tell the forum any book of Chomsky's that you have actually read, since you seem to know all his material. I am guessing your reply this time will take longer than 9 days ....

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-06-07 16:26:54

truths a bitch ain't it.

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-06-07 10:58:50

Generally America prefers to attack countries which can't defend themselves from US power. Given Iran has already defeated them in Syria, I think it's highly unlikely they'd want a full scale war.

Posted by Istanbul Wingman on 2019-06-03 11:52:40

English isn't my first language grammar Nazi.

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-06-02 11:47:45

Says the white western cunt who thinks they know more then someone who's mother is from Iran.

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-06-02 11:45:15

dude, you are a clueless buffoon and I am embarrassed for you ...

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-05-29 20:57:59

ditto

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-05-29 20:56:50

you are not worth the time to respond

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-05-29 20:56:42

What has Iran actually done to the USA? Nothing. What has the USA actually done to Iran? Well, Kermit Roosevelt, under the direction of the fledgling CIA and a couple of million dollars, managed to overthrow a DEMOCRATIC government in Iran in 1953, that WAS NOT UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF A MUSLIM THEOCRATIC RULE, and the USA overthrew that government because the Brits under Churchill wanted Iranian oil under the control of British Petroleum (BP) , and the USA obliged that request under Eisenhower. Sagely, Truman balked at the overthrow of Mossadegh because he felt Iran was the best chance for the USA to have a democratic partner in the Middle East (long before American politics became hijacked by AIPAC and Israeli interests) . Imagine the landscape of the modern middle east if the USA did NOT pursue this reckless policy of a coup! No Iranian revolution, no US supporting Saddam Hussein between 1980-1988 trying to put out the Iranian fire, no US invading Iraq in 1991, no reason for Saddam to switch Iraqi oil contracts in 2000 to euros to get back at the USA for the back-stab, and then no Iraq invasion in 2003 by the USA.... See where this is going??? Look at all the current chaos because Russia "may have" tried to influence American democratic elections. The USA has done far worse. We have overthrown, we have sent troops and invaded, and we have supported coups, militarily and financially, against dozens of countries around the globe. I guess that is all OK with you. Why don't we get back to the limits of the Constitution, and why don't we go back to the Christian Golden Rule ; Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You . If we did this, America would be stronger and better, and the rest of the world would be MUCH MUCH better. Let's see what you have to say in response ....

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-05-29 20:55:58

Did you even read the article? I have read many of his books, and I doubt you have. Chomsky does not "hate America" but he is very good at establishing true agendas versus manufactured agendas, served up to a gullible American population, which you seem to be a prime example of. Chomsky uses governmental agencies and their regular offerings of data to support his claims. What do you have to back up your claims? Emotional blackmail in the form of a few labels. Why don't you return to the discussion when you actually have something substantive to offer. Doubt we will ever see you again ...

Posted by scottiefromlafayette on 2019-05-29 20:41:47

Mr. Chompsky is much too intellectual for all but the most elite forums, especially in "dumbed-down" contemporary MAGA-hatted 'Merica. His monotone delivery partially penalizes his oratory but his message remains unique in its breadth, insight and candor. He remains a much under-appreciated gift to geopolitical analysis and bears much more recognition for his genius- level perspectives on everything global (i.e., under U.S. control). Amazingly enough, he avoids political infighting and alignments to demigodery. He remains a true gift to those able to appreciate the nuances of broad-vocabulary English, a shockingly shrinking minority, I am afraid.

Posted by Douglas L. Black on 2019-05-27 15:11:19

Too?

Posted by Douglas L. Black on 2019-05-27 14:55:07

Spot on.

Posted by Marco Van Bergen on 2019-05-27 14:20:58

Let me run something past you Uri. That death to America chant your people shout day after day do you think we are not going to call you on this sooner or later. Guess what? Later is here.Are you surprise you are being called out now. Death to Iran.

Posted by RLB on 2019-05-27 11:09:56

That would make sense, Chris. I didn't know that the Shah began to actually want Iran to have more control over their own oil. I guess that's what happens to puppets when they go against the masters that have a hand up their whatever.

On the other hand, what plans did the US have for replacing the Shah?

On a somewhat different tack (suggested by your comment), why is it that we support 'resistance' like Al Qaeda and such, that are horrific human rights abusers and than we become surprised when they abuse human rights and fly planes into our big buildings? Our foreign policy 'geniuses' are idiots.

Posted by daedalus43 on 2019-05-26 10:28:44

The US actually wanted the Shah deposed after he became to much like how Saddam was. In others words to independent and willing to break US globalist policy for his own gains. Ask any Iranian nationalist and they will tell you this. Its only when they realized that the alternative to him was even worse did they end support for his downfall which by then was to late.

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-05-25 21:11:43

All oppressive regimes support puppets. America is supposed to support democracy.

And, why is Chomsky a 'wannabe'? Are you the real thing?And, the US was totally distraught when the Shah was deposed, and the 'Soviets' saw the opportunity to support the new government as the Americans wrung their hands, wondering why Iranians didn't like being thrown in prison and tortured. Iranians with wealth, of course, left (taking their wealth with them), but the common person was rather happy to see the British/American imposed 'monarch' deposed.

Posted by daedalus43 on 2019-05-25 19:42:43

It's good to see Chomsky writing for this organization. His long history of deconstructing capitalism is clearly on record. I'd suggest any of his books, but 'Manufacturing Consent' is one of his best. His speaking style is a bit tedious, but if you listen to the ideas and ignore the monotone, suddenly he's right on target.

I'm sorry to see some of the older comments, and suspect some of those to be coming from 'operatives' within our propaganda machine. Most of them have no descriptive content and seem designed to generated loathing.

Posted by daedalus43 on 2019-05-25 19:34:02

And the Shah was as much support by the Soviets as the US. Something that socialist wannabes like Chumpsky fail to bring up.

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-05-24 13:41:17

God I'm so sick of this phony white savior bullshit made by the neo liberal americans who are really no different then they're conservative counterparts when it comes to wanting to dominate the world. F off Chumpsky!

Posted by Christopher Corvino on 2019-05-24 13:38:54

Iran has been around for thousands of years, seen rise and falls of empires including her own empire that lasted more than the history of US all together. They have survived before and they will survive this hostile US adminstration.

Posted by Uri on 2019-05-22 17:13:11

Once again, Chumpsky shows his hatred of the USA. Last I looked, people were trying to enter the US, because of what it represents, but in Chumpsky's ivory tower, he has the luxury of judging this country from his bourgeois perch.